F**k you, All Songs Considered

Have you seen this sexist crap from NPR's All Songs Considered?

They asked how was the most important "band" of your college years?

Right away the question is sexist.  Band will not include a large number of women in the list because most bands have traditionally been all male or male with a token female.

If you asked most people of any age who meant the most musically to them in their college years, Joni Mitchell would be one of the first names to come up.

But it said "band," so we can't vote Joni.  She's an individual, not a band.  Right?

But guys always bend the rule when they vote and NPR was happy to assist them which is how the 'band' "Neil Young" made not just the list but part of the report.

If they had used the appropriate term ("artist"), women could have competed.

Instead NPR aired another one of their sexist stories and this one left listeners with the impression that very few women were listened by college kids of any generation.

Thanks NPR, little by little, you make the world a lot worse for all of us?

And if you really want to be insulted read Robin Hilton's awful blog post that 'inspired' the segment.

1) U2
2) Peter Gabriel
3) Sinead O'Connor
4) George Winston
5) Enya


Besides the fact that the list covers more than 4 years and it's supposed to be Hilton's college listening, there's also that he mocks Enya in the post.  Thanks for setting the pattern of sexism, Robin Hilton.


Okay, this is Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "The Economy" from this morning:





My three reviews from the holiday are: "Kat's Korner: Susanna Hoffs and Joss Stone, who can figure it out?,"  "Kat's Korner: Animal Collective goes instinctual"  and "Kat's Korner: All Hail The Queen of F**ked Up."

Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Tuesday, September 4, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, the political stalemate continues, the Iraqi ministries undercount the dead, Cindy Sheehan announces she is no longer on the Peace and Freedom Party's presidential ticket, Jill Stein fights Google and Jill Stein wins, and more.   Starting with the US and the presidential race there.  A surprise announcement was made today when Cindy Sheehan issued a statement at her website.  Sheehan was Roseanne Barr's running mate on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket.  Due to health reasons, Cindy has stepped down and also due to personal reasons: "As to the personal reasons, Candidate Barr and I have irreconcilable differences on how best to serve the Peace and Freedom Party."  Cindy goes on to off her "hope that the Party/Campaign would take my suggestion to replace me with the worthy and talented Ms. Cynthia McKinney."  Former US House Rep Cynthia McKinney was the Green Party's presidential nominee in 2008.   I can't speak for Cindy Sheehan.  I can repeat what I noted last week which is one person was doing work and one person was Tweeting.  Cindy was the vice presidential candidate.  She was going to the media, being interviewed.  At her site, she and Jon Gold had upped the publishing so that new content was coming from the campaign.   And Roseanne was playing like the stereotype of a pajama blogger.  Roseanne being Roseanne was supposed to be a good thing.  She was supposed to bring extra attention to the race which is why the Peace and Freedom Party gave her the nomination -- they had people running for that nomination, Roseanne showed up at the last minute like a Bush trying to for admission for Harvard and grabbed the nomination.  That was fine because the Peace and Freedom Party is trying to build their party ("Because of changes in election law, Peace and Freedom must almost double its registration by the end of 2014 to stay on the ballot. By registering Peace and Freedom, you are joining with tens of thousands of others who want to take control of our political system away from the ruling capitalist class.") and a big name could help them do that by getting the word out.   But, as I noted Friday, right now there is movement do dump Roseanne by some members of the Peace and Freedom Party ("How would it feel to be the first presidential candidate whose own party publicly rebukes them?").   Cindy worked her ass off -- Cindy and Jon Gold both did.  And Roseanne Tweeted.   And Tweeted hateful Tweets that led to complaints from the Peace and Freedom Party which led Roseanne to say 'This is my personal Tweet feed and this is my campaign Tweet feed.'  Yeah, let's pretend like you can draw that line and run for public office.  Roseanne's ticket was the ticket to cover because it is so f**ked up.  I'm glad Cindy's off the ticket for that reason.  I'm sad she's off the ticket because she really using the platform in a way that spotlighted issues and that raised the profile of the Peace and Freedom Party.    I like Roseanne as a person and as an artist but months ago I said I wouldn't vote for her and that's why: The crazy.  She's governed by fear and can't let go of the hate.  We've had more than enough fear and hate the White House.  In fact, we've had so much for so long that there are elements on the left that see the country in terms of Hatfields and McCoys.  (The right has seen it that way for some time.  I never thought we on the left would fall victim to that as well.)  And we want to demonize Republicans as a result of that view.   Republicans are your friends, your lovers, your co-workers.  They're not the enemy.  They may have different ideas and an exchange about those ideas might make both sides stronger but no exchange ever takes place when people demonize.  If there are politicians you do not care for, call them out in any tone you want.  But politicians don't necessarily represent the people -- if the Green Party or the Peace and Freedom Party honestly thought politicians represented the people, they wouldn't be working to build a political party, they'd just join one of the two dominant ones.   If 15 Republicans nationwide switched to the Peace and Freedom Party this cycle, the party would consider it a success and should.  They wouldn't say, "Ew, former Republicans?  We don't want them!"   But it's unlikely that they'll recruit from that group or many groups when Roseanne can't stop Tweeting hate which, yes, does include wishing cancer on people.  When you're crossing those lines as a comedian, you're in trouble.  When you're doing it as a political candidate, your campaign's dead.    I don't think, my opinion, Cynthia McKinney could revive it.  If she were asked, I would hope she would say no.  What would be the point?  Cynthia's an elected politician who served in Congress.  She ran last cycle for president and knows the hard work involved.  So now she's going to join on to Roseanne's campaign and bust her ass -- but not so much that she steals attention -- to keep the campaign in the news?  How does that help Cynthia in any way?  It doesn't.   In Roseanne's art, she is caring and loving and embracing.  It's a shame she did not bring that side into her campaign.   As Roseanne's campaign falls apart (maybe this will allow her to rise from the ashes and be a better candidate, who knows), Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein announces a victory.  Google TV was refusing to show the Stein campaign's ad.  This was a violation of federal law.  This afternoon, the campaign updated their announcement to note that the "ad are now running on TV, cable, and satellite nationally.  Thanks for your support."   Robert Mackey (New York Times) reports that Google relented and notes that Ben Manski, Jill's campaign manager , states that the "ad was primarily intended to be shown on cable and satellite channels, like MSNBC and Comedy Central, which, like the Internet, are not subject to government regulation of objectionable language in the way that words and images broadcast over the airwaves still are."  The word in question was "bulls**t" -- according to Mackey, it was partially bleeped for the TV ad -- and you can stream the commercial -- unbleeped -- at the Times' report.   Yesterday, Dr. Jill Stein spoke with John Hockenberry on PRI's The Takeaway.   John Hockenberry:  So we've got a little time here and I want to do a couple of things.  First, I want to give you your chance to lay out your platform, if you can relatively briefly.  What is the Green Party's message in 2012?   Jill Stein:  The message is we need an economy that works for every day people -- not for the bankers who control not only the economy but certainly our political system as well.  So as the only political party that does not accept corporate money, we actually have the unique ability to reflect the urgent needs and desires of the American people.  And we are not bought and paid for, we can actually call for the real solutions that the American people are clamoring for.  And I would add to this that several polls recently have showed that between 50 and 60% of the American electorate is actually calling for a third party and saying they would seriously consider voting for one.  So why is it?  Number one, we're calling for jobs -- not simply tax breaks or corporate tax breaks or favors for the so-called job creators who are creating jobs in India and China.  We're calling for 25 million jobs here in this country through a Green New Deal.  We know how to do this.  It got us out of the Great Depression in the 1930s.  It can get us out of this Great Recession right now.  And we're calling for a Green version of this New Deal because it would also jump start the Green economy that could spell an end to climate change and make wars for oil obsolete.  That's number one.  Number two, health care as a human right.  Through Medicare for all -- basically simply extending the elegibility of Medicare to start at the moment of conception so that everybody is covered comprehensively.  It puts you back in charge of making your health care decisions, not a profiteering CEO and it saves us trillions of dollars.  A well kept secret: It doesn't cost us, it saves us because it eliminates the massive, wasteful health insurance bureaucracy.  Number three, tuition-free public, higher education.  We have a generation of students who are locked out of a future.  They are endentured servants under the current system.  Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are promising they will stay the course on student debt.  That's not what we need.  We've bailed out the bankers who caused this problem through waste, fraud and abuse on Wall Street.  We can bail out the students who've been the victim of that problem and provide free, public higher education that is tuition-free.  We know that it pays for itself.  We did this through the GI Bill after WWII.  We know for every dollar we tax payers invest, we get seven dollars back in benefits to the economy.   John Hockenberry:  Okay.  We're talking with Jill Stein, Green Party nominee for President of the United States.  Students are victims of the bank crisis because they're holders of this debt and their interest rate reflects some of the consequences of the financial crisis, is that what you're saying there?   Jill Stein: Well, it's not only the debt --  the sky rocketing of tuition so that state legislators have been able to provide big tax breaks to the wealthy.  The burden has fallen on the students because the public support for higher education isn't there --   John Hockenberry: Right.   Jill Stein: Add to that the unemployment crisis which falls hardest on their backs with 50% unemployment  and underemployment for students.  That really locks them into endentured servant status.   John Hockenberry: It was a miserable summer for college students, absolutely, as you point out, Dr. Jill Stein.  Alright, how come climate change is almost no part of the debate in 2012 between the Republicans and the Democrats where it seemed to be on both party platforms in 2008?   Jill Stein:  Yeah, well I think, you know, it's no secret our parties have been bought and paid for by Wall Street and multi-national corporate interests and, of course, oil, fossel fuel, nuclear -- nuclear power, etc., you know, all the dirty energy stands to benefit from staying the course.  So you see de-regulation of energy, the continuation of the current crisis which is not only causing drought, heat waves, the melting of the Artic and beyond, rising prices of food, fires, etc.  You know, we have a disaster that is really beginning to hit the American people.  The American people are calling for real solutions to climate change.  They are told, over and over, that it's a choice between your job or your climate and, in fact, that's not true at all.     It's a very lively segment and The Takeaway deserves credit for doing it -- not just the interview with Jill, the segment is also about political conventions, American voters and other issues with various people sounding off.   In Charlotte, North Carolina, the Demcorats have kiced off their national convention.  And on the subject of the implosion of Roseanne's campaign (a) it is news, (b) I'm glad we made time for the campaign (again, it was news), (c) Roseanne may pull herself out of her spiral, (d) if she doesn't that might make for an even more interesting story -- meaning no one ever had an excuse not to cover the Roseanne campaign.  They made excuses. They ignored her and they ignored Jill.  It's their loss.   On lively and sounding off,  Archbishop Desmond Tutu shook things up over the weekend.  As War Criminal Tony Blair banked more blood money by speaking Thursday in South Africa, he faced protests and also saw Archbishop Desmond Tutu bow out of the speaking engagement with his office stating the Archbishop could not share the stage with Blair due to his Iraq War actions.  Saturday, Tutu had a column on the matter which the Observer has published: If leaders may lie, then who should tell the truth? Days before George W Bush and Tony Blair ordered the invasion of Iraq, I called the White House and spoke to Condoleezza Rice, who was then national security adviser, to urge that United Nations weapons inspectors be given more time to confirm or deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Should they be able to confirm finding such weapons, I argued, dismantling the threat would have the support of virtually the entire world. Ms Rice demurred, saying there was too much risk and the president would not postpone any longer. On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers' circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush's chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein? The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded. On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague. It quickly became the column read 'round the world.   Tom Foot (Independent) explains, "Archbishop Desmond Tutu today brands Tony Blair and George Bush war criminals and calls for both former leaders to be hauled before an international court."  Adam Sich (ITN) added, "As for the call for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to face justice in The Hague, he said different standards appeared to be set for prosecuting African leaders than western ones, and that the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict was sufficient on its own for them to face action."  BBC quoted War Criminal Tony Blair insisting, ""I would also point out that despite the problems, Iraq today has an economy three times or more in size, with child mortality rate cut by a third of what it was. And with investment hugely increased in places like Basra."  Pakistan's The Nation covered it.   CNN covers the story and notes, "Tutu detailed some of the costs of the war. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict, while millions have been displaced, he said. Close to 4,500 U.S. soldiers have been killed and more than 32,000 wounded, Tutu added." The Irish Times covers the story as well, "As for the call for Mr Blair and Mr Bush to face justice in The Hague, he said different standards appeared to be set for prosecuting African leaders than for western ones, and that the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict was sufficient on its own for them to face action. 'On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague'."  The Oman Observer carries an AFP report.  Thanks to Archbishop Tutu, two War Criminals are getting some of the long overdue condemnation they've had coming.  Today George Monbiot offered "We're one crucial step closer to seeing Tony Blair at The Hague" (Guardian):     When Desmond Tutu wrote that Tony Blair should be treading the path to The Hague, he de-normalised what Blair has done. Tutu broke the protocol of power – the implicit accord between those who flit from one grand meeting to another – and named his crime. I expect that Blair will never recover from it. The offence is known by two names in international law: the crime of aggression and a crime against peace. It is defined by the Nuremberg principles as the "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression". This means a war fought for a purpose other than self-defence: in other words outwith articles 33 and 51 of the UN Charter. That the invasion of Iraq falls into this category looks indisputable. Blair's cabinet ministers knew it, and told him so. His attorney general warned that there were just three ways in which it could be legally justified: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UN security council authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Blair tried and failed to obtain the third.       Saturday the month of September started.  Iraq Body Count tabulated 393 people dead in Iraq from violence for the month of August.  Meanwhile the official number from the Iraqi ministries is 164.  AFP noted their own count of 278 killed and 51 injured and that their figures for June, July and August demonstrate "the death toll nationwide has been almost unchanged."  Mohammed Tafeeq (CNN) noted CNN's count is 270 dead last month.  Like IBC, Antiwar.com keeps their own independent count based on media reports.  Margaret Griffis reports her outlet's count is 511 deaths for the month of August.  Like AFP, Antiwar.com's count shows no real variation (June was 544 and July was 545).   Violence didn't stop in August.  Today, Press TV reports that 2 bombings between Al-Adhaim and Tuz Khurmatu claimed the lives of 6 Iraqi soldiers with another two left injured.  AFP notes that 16-year-old Ali Mohammed Ali was discovered outside Kirkuk "his hands, feet and head cut off."   Alsumaria notes a Kirkuk roadside bombing has left a Peshmerga captain and two members injured today.  In adddition, Dar Addustour reports a Basra cafe frequented by Emo teens and young people was bombed.   The Iraq War hasn't ended -- even if the press interest in it has.  NPR's Scott Horsley won "Biggest Damn Liar Of The Week" on Sunday from Third for his 'report' on Weekend Edition Sunday in which he proclaimed, "There are no more US troops in Iraq."  At Third, we noted that last month,  RTT reported, "More than 225 U.S. troops, seven Defense Department civilians, 530 security assistance team members and more than 4,000 contracted personnel are currently in the office at the Iraqi government's invitation." We pointed to the December 13th, Talk of the Nation which noted all US troops would not be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. The guest was Ted Koppel and he noted the 157 who guard the US Embassy, the "few hundred U.S. military trainers."  (That's not counting contractors.)  And we noted that, as last week closed, Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) was reporting: More than 3,500 insurgents have been "taken off the streets of Baghdad" by the elite British force in a series of audacious "Black Ops" over the past two years. It is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured, several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as "al-Qa'eda in Iraq" have been killed by the SAS. The SAS is part of a highly secretive unit called "Task Force Black" which also includes Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS.     Fars News Agnecy reports that Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, is stating that the situation in Iraq has improved and the country "is moving towards progress and development" making him Iraq's home grown Tony Blair -- a liar supreme, able to stand out even in a world of liars. Al Mada reports today that the National Alliance is in disagreement with Article 140.  Article 140 takes its name from being the 140th article in Iraq's Constitution passed in 2005.  And it's law, not proposal, not bill, not a notion.  Law.  The Constitution was passed in 2005.  The US installed Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister in the spring of 2006.  Article 140 was supposed to have been implemented by the end of 2007 per the Constitution.  Nouri refused to do so. Kirkuk is disputed.  It is oil-rich and the Kurdistan Regional Government says they have a right to it and the Baghdad-based central government says they have a right to it.  That's what "disputed" means (we're going slow in case Chris Hill's joining us this morning -- at his 2009 confirmation hearing he showed indifference to and ignorance of the issue).  Article 140 calls for a census and a referendum.  And Article 140 has been repeatedly ignored. In March 2010, Iraq held parliamentary elections.  Nouri's State of Law came in second to Iraqiya which meant no second term for Nouri unless Iraaqiya imploded in the 30 day process of naming a Cabinet.  (When named prime minister-designate, you have 30 days to name a Cabinet.  If you don't succeed within 30 days, another prime minister-designate is supposed to be named.)  Nouri threw his fit and had the White House backing him.  This brought the government to a standstill for over 8 months (Political Stalemate I).  During this time, Nouri made spectacular promises in an attempt to sway people to his side.  He even (finally) scheduled a census for Kirkuk. The US brokered a contract with the various political blocs.  It gave Nouri a second term in exchange for various concessions.  Among those was implementing Article 140.  This contract is called the Erbil Agreement.   The day after it was signed, Parliament held their first real session in over 8 months and Nouri was named prime minister-designate.  Nouri then trashed the Erbil Agreement and called off the the Kirkuk census that had been scheduled for the beginning of December. Resolving the issue of the disputed territories is seen as very important and instead addressing it, it has been ignored and ignored and ignored.  That doesn't resolve anything and only breeds further tensions. So now the National Alliance -- of which Ammar al-Hakim is a part -- wants to act as if Article 140 of the Constitution is optional?  And al-Hakim wants to pretend that things are better in Iraq? This as Nawzad Mahmoud (Rudaw) reports, "Several Kurdish lawmakers in Baghdad believe that the situation is not yet ripe for negotiations between the Kurdistan Region and central government."  Speaking to various Kurdish MPs a portrait of a distracted Nouri quickly emerges: Last week, the Non-Aligned Summit was held in Tehran where leaders discussed solutions to the current situation in Syria. During the summit, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proposed an initiative to end Syria's violence. "Maliki should have proposed an initiative to end Iraq's political turmoil instead," Abdullah said. He added, "It's surprising that Maliki is busy finding a solution for Syria while his own country is in crisis." In more political turmoil, All Iraq News reports that Ismail al-Jubouri has been arrested.  He is a member of the Diayala Provincial Council and is also a member of Iraqiya.  He's been arrested on charges of terrorism.  It would appear to be political especially when an uproar over the arrest forced the security forces to release al-Jubouri shortly after he was arrested.  He has stated he was arrested for political reasons including that he has announced he is running for governor of the province.  (August 18th, Governor Hashim Hayali died.)  Along with needing a new governor, Diyala's also facing another problem.  All Iraq News reports people are setting fires to the many orchards in the province and farmers are demading the authorities do something.         iraq cindy sheehan pri the takeaway john hockenberry afp antiwar.com margaret griffis rudaw al mada alsumaria cnn mohammed tawfeeq dar addustour ak news the guardian george monbiot

Music

Happy Labor Day.

I've got two music reviews up at The Common Ills.

• Kat's Korner: Animal Collective goes instinctual
• Kat's Korner: Susanna Hoffs and Joss Stone, who ca...

I have one more that needs an edit (I wrote it last night) and it will go up after C.I.'s Iraq entry.  With the two above -- covering three albums -- and the one to go, that's 3 reviews and four albums.  I actually was planning another review of one more album.

What happened?

Two songs.  I don't want to review the album because I don't spend money on a Maria McKee project for two songs -- one of which she's not singing on.  It's a soundtrack.  It's got a lot of incidental music, a lot of one and two minute tracks.  There are only two songs.  I'm not going to review that album.  I don't have anything nice to say about it.  It may be a great soundtrack but I was expecting a Maria McKee soundtrack which, in my mind, meant signing.   Again, it may be a great soundtrack.  I hope it is.  I saved it for last -- to listen to.  I thought everything would pale beside it and I wouldn't be fair to the other albums.  Then I listened to it and it left me cold, sorry.


So there are two reviews up and a third one will go up in a few hours.


Jill Stein is running for President on the Green Party ticket and her campaign notes:



Opinion article issued for Labor Day, 2012, by Jill Stein. A PDF version of this statement is available by clicking here. Photo at right is of Philly labor leader Jim Moran speaking with Cheri Honkala and Jill Stein.
I welcome and endorse the AFL-CIO's campaign to finally fulfill President Roosevelt's 1944 call for a second, Economic Bill of Rights, including the rights to jobs, living wages, labor unions, voting rights, health care, education, and retirement security. As the Green Party candidate for President, my Green New Deal platform already has specific proposals to secure these rights.

• Jobs: Employ the unemployed in public works projects and federally-supported community-controlled cooperatives and other enterprises; create 25 million green and public service jobs.
• Living Wages: Raise the federal minimum wage to a living wage.
• Labor Law Reforms: Repeal the anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act, outlaw permanent striker replacements, and authorize majority card check union recognition.
• Voting Rights: Pass the Right To Vote Amendment to establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote and accurate vote counting.
• Corporate Power: Pass a constitutional amendment to repeal the corrupting court-ordered doctrines that corporations are people and money is speech and establish that corporations and election campaign finance can be regulated
• Health Care: Enact single-payer Medicare for All.
• Education: Forgive student debt and provide tuition-free public education from pre-school through graduate school.
• Retirement Security: Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes for high incomes in order to secure Social Security's indefinite fiscal sustainability.

The AFL-CIO leadership are demanding that the two corporate-financed parties, the Democrats and Republicans, adopt the Economic Bill of Rights in their platforms at their conventions this year. They must know this is a lost cause with the openly anti-union Republicans. They should know that a real commitment to an Economic Bill of Rights is as much a lost cause with the Democrats, who have taken labor's political support for granted for many decades with no significant pro-labor reforms to show for it.

If they didn't know that, it should have been clear on August 11 when a 40,000-strong AFL-CIO sponsored rally in Philadelphia called for the Economic Bill of Rights. The rally heard by video from President Obama, who made no mention of the Economic Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, in Detroit, the platform committee of the Democratic National Convention put the final touches on the platform to be adopted over Labor Day week that has no planks to secure any of these economic rights.

The great victories of labor have always been won by independent actions that pressured the political establishment to make concessions. The landmark National Labor Relations Act, which finally established workers' right to collectively bargain, was adopted in 1935 under the pressure of independent labor political action in the factories, shops, and streets by the ascendant union movement and in the electoral arena in the form of many union resolutions calling for a labor party. The labor party resolutions had credibility because the labor-backed Farmer-Labor and Progressive parties in the Upper Midwest already had two governors, three Senators, and 12 Representatives in their camp in 1935 and they were considering an independent presidential campaign in 1936.

But after the AFL rejected the labor party and went into the Democratic Party in 1936, labor lost its independent vision and its leverage in the political system.  It was now part of a coalition dominated by big business.

The anti-labor Taft-Hartley Act passed in 1947 with majority support of the Democratic majority in Congress. Every attempt at labor law reform since then has failed when there was a Democratic President with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

• Under Truman in 1949, the Democrats failed to repeal Taft-Hartley in 1949.
• Under Johnson in 1965 and 1966, the Democrats twice failed to repeal Section 14b of Taft-Hartley, the section that enabled states to outlaw union shops (so-called “right-to-work” laws).
• Under Carter in 1977 and 1978, the Democrats failed to pass one bill that would have repealed the Taft-Hartley prohibition on solidarity picketing at construction sites and another bill to reform the National Labor Relations Board whose long delays and inconsequential employer sanctions had made it a shield for union-busting.
• Under Clinton in 1993, the Democrats failed to pass a ban on permanent striker replacements.
• Under Obama in 2009-2010, the Democrats failed to pass the Employee Free Choice Act for majority card check union recognition. Worse, unlike any previous period of Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats failed to even bring the bill to a vote.

The AFL-CIO leadership has taken a small step toward independence by saying they will not give money directly to Democratic committees and candidates but instead spend it “independently” on their behalf.  Unfortunately, this often means supporting the very same Democrats who are collaborating with the anti-worker forces that dominate Washington. The words “political independence” are just that --words-- that have no power unless it involves running labor candidates who can challenge both corporate parties.

Imagine if labor had spent the over $15 billion they spent on the Democrats over the last 40 years instead building an independent labor party and movement. Today we would have scores of labor party organizers in every state supporting a broadly based party of the working class majority. We would have blocks of independent labor representatives in municipal, county, state, and the national legislatures. We would have a national labor daily newspaper and labor networks on radio and cable. The two corporate financed parties would no longer monopolize U.S. politics. Democrats like Obama would not dare to force new free trade treaties upon workers. Badly needed labor reforms would be back on the table. And halting the decline of real wages and living standards would suddenly be more of a priority than protecting the big Wall Street banks.

The labor movement in every other industrial nation has formed its own party that is independent of corporate money and control. They have been able to organize the working class majority to take political power, exercise it for the benefit of the working class majority, and secure economic rights, including universal health care, affordable public transit, free public college education, secure pensions, four to six weeks of paid vacation for all workers, paid maternity and family sick leave, and labor laws that protect their rights to organize and strike.

Labor has suffered a crushing series of political defeats in recent years and continuing a losing strategy is clearly unthinkable. It is time to practice the politics of courage rather than the politics of appeasement. Labor unions must offer reliable support to labor candidates running against both the corporate parties. And rank-and-file workers do not have to wait for the leadership to disentangle themselves from establishment politics. They can vote this year for Green Party candidates who refuse corporate funding and are campaigning for a Green New Deal that already incorporates the Economic Bill of Rights. Vote by vote, we can raise the voices of working people until we have overcome the corporate domination of politics, and set our country on a progressive course.

Matt Rothschild hates Christians & Democracy

If you never got it, Matthew Rothschild hates Christians.  He doesn't believe in God and he's a Socialist.  He has used The Progressive to launch a million and one attacks on Christians over the years.   But even I was taken aback by this crap.

Matty's panties are in a wad because Paul Ryan said, "Our rights come from nature and God, not from government."  That's all it took for Matty to take the express train to Crazy Town.

Let me quote something:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

Do you recognize it?

It's the Declaration of Independence.

Mad Matty is raging at Paul Ryan because Ryan said something that reflects the Declaration of Independence.

And he's right, Paul Ryan is right.

Why did we say "by their Creator" and not by government?  The same reason we used "unalienable Rights."  These are rights that exist because we're human.  No government gave them to us, no government can take them away.

This is what Rothschild wants to scream about.

He's truly lost any reason to write and we should all hope The Progressive shuts down shortly.

It's nothing but Matthew being hateful and partisan.  I'm reminded of all the things Ralph Nader said about The Progressive and Matthew back in 2008.

Next up, Matty screams that Betsy Ross didn't use cloth from a unionized textile mill when she sewed the first flag.



Closing with C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"

Friday, August 31, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, war resister Kimberly Rivera appeals publicly to remain in Canada, Barack lies that the war is over, the US press whores whatever's left of their name to lie for him, the Telegraph of London (however) reports that British and US forces have killed over 3,000 Iraqis in the last two years alone (no, the war hasn't ended), Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani calls for the security forces to stop the increase in assassinations across Iraq, the UN and Human Rights Watch call out the executions the Iraqi government is carrying out, Jill Stein focuses on real issues in her campaign for the presidency, and more. "My biggest fear is being separated from my children and having to -- having to sit in a prison for politically being against the war in Iraq," declared Kimberly Rivera in Canada this afternoon.  Yesterday, Kim Rivera was informed that the Canadian government planned to deport her by September 20th.  Today, Kim took part in a press conference with War Resisters Support Campaign's Michelle Robidoux.  Here's a transcript of the video the Toronoto Star has posted. Michelle Robidoux: We are calling on the government not to deport this family.  We think it's unfortunate that this government and, in particular, the Minister of Immigration [Jason Kenney] has seen fit to intervene in a process that should that should be fair and impartial by putting forward Operation Bulletin 202 which directs immigration officers to red flag the cases of US soldiers like Kim Rivera who are applying for status in this country and to label them criminally inadmissable. Kim Rivera: If you want to know my biggest fear is being separated from my children and having to -- having to sit in a prison for politically being against the war in Iraq which I had experience in.  Without that experience, I know that I would not have come to the decision I had made to leave and also be here in Canada for people to know that experience which I had spoken many of.  So the only thing that I guess I can really ask is that all of my legal applications that I applied be considered and my agency application also get a decision.   That's pretty much all I have. Michelle Robidoux: It's a matter of public record that Canada did not participate in the Iraq War, that two motions were passed in Parliament calling on the government to allow war resisters to stay in Canada and that also there have been a number of federal court and federal court of appeal decisions which are upholding the arguments that war resisters have made that they face differential punishment if they're returned to the United States, that they are punished more harshly for having spoken up against the war. Trina reflected on Kim this afternoon: Kim took a great personal risk and did so for what she believed in.  Once in Canada, she spoke out when the issue needed her.  She didn't try to turn herself into a celebrity.  If you ever read her blog on Liveblog (I can't find it there anymore), you know she was focused on her family and on her kids and she was trying to teach them ethics and how to lead a solid life. Kim's someone I would be friends with.  She's someone I would make a point to go up and hug when I saw her in church on Sundays.    She's a regular person like you or me and that came out in her blog where, like me, she'd write about food or about her kids. And now this woman who was so glad and so grateful to be in Canada and so wanting to become a Canadian citizen may be forced out of the country. Kim is not a person who tried to grab the spotlight.  She's just a mother who couldn't live with returning to what she saw in Iraq, couldn't live with herself if she returned.  And she also had to make sure that whatever did happen, it kept her family together.  Canada was the best possible answer and I just can't believe that Canada's going to force her to leave. Casey Irvin (Torontoist) explains, "While on leave in 2007, Rivera came to Canada to avoid a second tour of duty in Iraq, a war with which she had become disillusioned. Rivera lives here with her husband and their four children (the two youngest were born in Canada). The family and their lawyers are looking into their options, but Rivera probably faces jail time if she goes back. "  Jeanette Torres (ABC News Radio) notes that "Robin Long and Clifford Cornell, two American war resisters deported to the U.S., wound up facing year-long jail sentences because they refused deployment to Iraq."  Patty Winsa (Toronoto Star) reports: On Friday, the quiet Texan spoke out for the first time after learning this week from the Canada Border Services Agency that she had been given a negative pre-removal risk assessment and must leave the country by Sept. 20. "I'm just a bit overwhelmed. I don't want to face reality. I respect Canada's law. I'm going to take it one step at a time so I don't have a meltdown," said Rivera, who was surrounded by supporters and peace activists. "But it's is very difficult." Rivera said quietly that she hoped her application for permanent residency status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which she made in 2009, would still be considered. Charmaine Noronha (AP) adds that Kim "stepped away during a press conference Friday when she became visibly upset" and quotes Kim's attorney Alyssa Manning stating, "The 6 percent of (war) deserters who are punished through incarceration include service personnel who have been publicly outspoken about their criticisms of the Iraq war while AWOL.  The government has failed to assess that risk that Kim faces and that needs to be considered."  Alexandra Posadzki (Canadian Press) continues, "Manning said federal officials failed to consider the fact that Rivera has been outspoken about her opposition to the Iraq war when they evaluated her assessment." Kim and the man now trying to force her out of Canada, Minister Kenney, have met.  Here's a trasncript of the video. Minister Kenney at the University of Toronto March 18, 2009 Michelle Robidoux:  Hello my name is Michelle Robidoux.  This is Kim Rivera. Kim Rivera: (Shaking his hand)  Hi. Jason Kenney:  Hello. Michelle Robidoux:  We're just absolutely desperate and we're just sort of pleading with you.  If there's anything you can do to stop the petition.  The family has been here for almost two years.  Jason Kenney:  Okay. Michelle Robidoux:  She's an Iraq War resister who has refused to fight in Iraq, who has refused to continue to fight in Iraq.  And we know that you have the ability to do something to hopefully help this family in distress. They are in considerable distress.  We know there's an arrest warrant for her for deporation.  She will be arrested when she crosses the border when she's forced out next week.  So we're just asking for your intervention.  Some compassion for this family -- Pleae call Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety: 1-877-738-3748 or 613-996-7752. Jason Kenney:  Okay.  Well, actually, it's-it's the Minister of Public Safety that deals with removals, not me.  If you want to send me the particulars on the case . . . Michelle Robidoux:  Absolutely.  But the -- the humanitarian situation she's in, she did apply for humanitarian compassionate consideration and we're just desperate trying to -- Jason Kenney: Okay.  I'm sorry ma'am because I'm not aware of your particular case because we receive thousands of applications for agency and they're generally dealt with by department officials but -- Michelle Robidoux:  She faces deporation next Wednesday. Jason Kenney:  But if you send me the particulars, I will have my office look into it. I'm afraid I'm late for my next thing.  Thank you. The War Resisters Support Campaign notes: Canada's Parliament has adopted two motions calling on the federal government to allow war resisters to stay in Canada. But Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney has publicly labelled Iraq War resisters as "bogus refugee claimants". In July 2010, he issued a bulletin to all Immigration Officers requiring them to red-flag applications that involve US war resisters, labeling them as 'criminally inadmissible'. Amnesty International Canada and former Immigration and Refugee Board Chair Peter Showler have called for Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) Operational Bulletin 202 to be rescinded because it "fails to recognize that military desertion for reasons of conscience is in fact clearly recognized as a legitimate ground for refugee protection" and it "misstates the law and seeks to intrude on the independence of both IRB members and Immigration Officers." He told them it wasn't his department in March of 2009.  Then he issued orders in 2010 and now he's trying to force Kim out of Canada.  Is it his department or not?  Is any grown up in the Canadian government or is Kenney just allowed to make up whatever rules he wants? An upcoming event, next week, in Toronto is planned: Please attend an emergency community meeting to support U.S. war resister Kimberly Rivera and her family! WHEN: Wednesday, September 5, 7:00 PM WHERE: Parkdale United Church, 171 Dunn Avenue, Toronto WHY: STOP THE DEPORTATIONS! When Kimberly Rivera saw with her own eyes the devastation of war, and the trauma it inflicts on children and families, she followed her conscience and refused to go back. Instead, she and her husband and their (then) two children came to Canada. Since that day in 2007, the Riveras have been fighting to live their lives in peace. But despite the widespread support of the Canadian people for U.S. war resisters, and despite two votes in Parliament calling on the government to let war resisters stay, the Harper Government continues to target war resisters for deportation. Kim and her family - which now includes two children born in Canada - now face deportation on September 20. In the U.S., Kim faces court martial, jail time, and a felony conviction that will follow her for life. All for the "crime" of refusing to participate in the invasion, destruction, and occupation of Iraq. Kim stood up for peace at great risk to herself. Now we must stand up for Kim, and for other war resisters who face the same struggle. Please join the War Resisters Support Campaign for an emergency community meeting to support the Riveras, and to call on Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to stop the deportation. Please share this information with your friends and neighbours. We hope to see you there! In peace and solidarity, the War Resisters Support Campaign While Kim fights for her family, US President Barack Obama fights for re-election.  If only Kim Rivera had a pack of Devin Dwyer's to lie and whore for her.  ABC News' Devy, still so excited about sprouting pubes, can't be bothered with things like reporting.  When not rubbing his fingers in the tangle of his new downy growth and then sniffing his fingers, Devy assumes reporting is transcribing what Barack said and transcribing what Barack's "top aides" told him.  There's no attempt at facts, there's not an even attempt to get a response from any of the other presidential campaigns.   No, Devy, a response the Romney campaign gave on Wednesday is not what members of the press do when printing new attacks made on Friday.  Less fingers on yourself, more attention on your job. Devy quotes Barack stating, "I told the American people that all our troops would be out of Iraq by the end of" and Devy adds" [2011]."  Don't general studies majors learn math? You'd think since Devy's always got his fingers next to his nose, he could also use them to count.  Barack promised -- in those tent revivals that gave the Cult of St. Barack such tingles -- that all troops would be out of Iraq sixteen months after he was sworn in.  He was sworn in January 2009.  How many months does Devy think is in a year?  It's 12, Devy, twelve.  So what he promised was 2010.  By the first fourth of 2010.  Not the end of 2011.  What you did was not reporting, Little Devy, and sorry to drop this in the midst of your horny frenzy, but ALL the US service members have not returned home nor are they all out of Iraq.  Earlier this month, when US General Martin Dempsey, Chair of the Joint-Chiefs of Staff, visited Iraq,  RTT reported, "More than 225 U.S. troops, seven Defense Department civilians, 530 security assistance team members and more than 4,000 contracted personnel are currently in the office at the Iraqi government's invitation." 225 still in Iraq.  Over 15,000 moved into nearby Kuwait -- and the Senate Foreign Relations Democratic half issued a report stating those troops needed to stay for several more years to ensure that Iraq is 'stable' --  in fairness, the report  [PDF format warning] "The Gulf Security Architecture: Partnership With The Gulf Co-Operation Council" did advocate dropping the number down to 13,000.   (Refer to the June 19th snapshot.) is it really that hard for Devin Dwyer to stop self-pleasuring and start reporting? Devy quotes White House spokesperson Jay Carney declaring his "surprise" that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney did not includ "the 70,000 men and women who are serving in Afghanistan" in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention yesterday.  I'm more shocked that a sitting president stood in front of service members today and lied that all US troops were out of Iraq.  I'm also appalled that this fact is vanished from the press.  Kathleen Hennessey (Los Angeles Times) at least offers some perspective, "Two years ago, as he declared the end to a long and divisive war, President Obama promised troops he would not be taking a 'victory lap.' On Friday, the president allowed himself something of a brief victory dance."  But perspective would also include that after Barack gave his August 31, 2010 speech, when the Iraq War 'combat operations' 'ended' and it was rechristened Operation New Dawn ("now he's soaking in it," as Isaiah noted),  66 American service members died in Iraq, 38 of whom even the Pentagon classifies as dead from hostilities. Those deaths are perspective as well and how very sad and telling about the whore class trying to pass itself off as a press corps that they don't have the decency or common sense to even acknowledge those deaths. The Iraq War has not ended.  But when you keep head in the sand (and Devin keeps his hand in his pants), you may miss that.  Remember this from Monday's snapshot: "Dar Addustour reports 5 British citizens were arrested in Baghdad yesterday -- they did not have passports or i.d. on them." Golly gee, why would any British people be in Iraq?  The war 'ended,' right? Sean Rayment (Telegraph of London) reported last night: More than 3,500 insurgents have been "taken off the streets of Baghdad" by the elite British force in a series of audacious "Black Ops" over the past two years. It is understood that while the majority of the terrorists were captured, several hundred, who were mainly members of the organisation known as "al-Qa'eda in Iraq" have been killed by the SAS. The SAS is part of a highly secretive unit called "Task Force Black" which also includes Delta Force, the US equivalent of the SAS. Wow.  The war's 'over' but Iraqis are being killed by Brits and by the US Delta Force.  Killed and captured. In 'sovereign' Iraq this takes place.  The war's not over and only a dishonest whore would ever claim otherwise.  Barack has ended nothing.  David Swanson went into the belly of the beast, a Barack rally, to call out the continued War Crimes and assaults on liberty.  David Swanson (War Is A Crime) reports: Three of us went into the event. I had tickets, which were free and which the campaign could barely give away, while back in 2007 Obama had sold out the same venue. We didn't go in so as to spend hours in the hot sun just to hear an Obama speech like the one he'd given the day before in another town which we could have watched on Youtube. Thousands of people did that. We went in to disturb the war. We wanted to shout. But what could we shout? We were only three. We were not near the front. (I recommend taking 10 to the front of one of these events if you can. You'll own the place.) We would have to be loud and clear. We couldn't mention the kill list which would be like mentioning UFOs to these people. We couldn't mention Social Security because they pretend Obama's not threatening it. We couldn't mention peace because people would think it was a pro-Obama chant. We decided to say this: Get out of Afghanistan! End the sanctions on Iran! Here's how the Washington Post's blog reported on that: "Protesters drown out Obama "Posted by Amy Gardner on August 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm "CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — An outdoor political rally erupted into a moment of chaos as protesters drowned out President Obama's speech at a downtown amphitheater here — and then the rest of the crowd drowned out the protesters. It was unclear what the protesters were saying, but several members of the crowd said a few minutes later that they heard 'Get out of Afghanistan!' The shouts prompted a flurry of Secret Service activity, and they also prompted an enthusiastic crowd of more than 7,000 to shut down the protesters with two cacophonous chants: 'Four more years!' and 'O-ba-ma!' Obama couldn't continue for a long moment, but when the noise finally died down, he said: 'I couldn't hear what those young people had to say, but that's good that they got involved.' To the rest of the crowd, he said: 'Don't just chant! Vote!'" Obama was pretending the crowd was all young people. He'd tried to speak at the University of Virginia which had turned him down, but he gave his speech as if he were there. The crowd didn't shout us down till we'd run out of breath. They were not nearly as fast as Republicans are with their "U-S-A! U-S-A!" In fact, they seemed tremendously proud of themselves when they managed to discover that they could yell "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Voting, in the pretense of those in power, constitutes more activism than chanting or any other activity. Don't just hold teach-ins, vote! Don't just occupy the square, vote! Don't just risk your life to expose injustice, vote! If Bradley Manning had just voted, that would have been the last full measure of devotion. As to the flurry of Secret Service activity, an Obama campaign guy started standing next to us, and a mean possibly drunk guy started shoving and threatening us. After various additional disruptions of the war (not the peace) by us, the Obama guy called the local police over who asked us to leave, and asked for our names, etc., to tell them to the Secret Service. The police had earlier refused numerous requests by the Obama staff and volunteers to evict our poster demonstration. The police had mentioned freedom of speech. The local media, as well as the police, were surprisingly decent. The Obama campaigners, on the other hand, would have exiled us all to Gitmo if they'd been able, and if they weren't suffering under the misconception that it's been closed. WMC Live with Robin Morgan is the new radio talk show that airs live on DC's WPWS (1480 AM) on Sundays from three to four p.m. -- and streams live online -- audio and video. Sunday is the second show and her guests will include US House Rep "Eleanor Holmes Norton on the election, Jodie Evans (CODEPINK) from the conventions; El Diario's Erica Gonzalez on Latina politics; author Ariel Levy on books and vaginas."  If you missed the first episode of the radio show from the Women's Media Center, you can stream it at the link and, because WMC understands the need for being inclusive, the transcript is here.  Realizing that a stream doesn't reach every computer user -- due to platform or connection issues or due to hearing issues -- WMC plans to transcribe each broadcast -- which will also allow for a very strong archive. Who listened live on Sunday?  As Robin noted at the top of her broadcast, "And a special welcome to the international family online from (that I know of) Brazil, Egypt, Germany, India, Italy, Kenya, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the pioneering feminists in Kurdistan."  In the KRG, women have achieved a lot in the last few years by fighting for what is needed.  As Human Rights Watch noted earlier this week, there are still things to be done: The practice of female genital mutilation continues in the Kurdistan region of Iraq a year after a landmark law banning it went into effect because the Kurdistan Regional Government has not taken steps to implement the law. The Family Violence Law, which went into effect on August 11, 2011, includes several provisions to eradicate female genital mutilation (FGM), recognized internationally as a form of violence against women. The regional government has begun to run awareness campaigns, train judges, and issue orders to police on the articles of the law dealing with domestic violence. But it apparently has not taken similar steps to implement the FGM ban, Human Rights Watch found. Between late May and mid-August, 2012, Human Rights Watch spoke with over 60 villagers, policemen, government officials, lawyers, and human rights workers in the districts of Chamachamal, Choman, Erbil, Penjwin, Pishdar, Rania, Soran, Shaqlawa, and Sulaimaniya about the problem. "The KRG parliament took a huge step forward when it passed the Family Violence Law," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Authorities now need to begin the difficult process of putting a comprehensive plan in place to implement the law, including informing the public, police, and health professionals about the ban on FGM." In June 2010, Human Rights Watch issued an 81-page report, "They Took Me and Told Me Nothing: Female Genital Mutilation in Iraqi Kurdistan," which urged the Kurdistan Regional Government, parliament, civil society, and donors to take steps to end the practice. The report described the experiences of young girls and women who undergo FGM and the terrible toll it takes on their physical and mental health. The KRG parliament passed the Family Violence Law in June 2011. In the recent interviews, Human Rights Watch spoke with more than 20 villagers who had daughters in the age range when FGM is traditionally performed – between ages 4 and 12. Some said they were no longer intending to have the procedure performed on their daughters, as a result of awareness campaigns conducted by representatives of nongovernmental organizations who had visited their villages, but a few said they planned to have the procedure done. None had seen any action or awareness efforts by the government. "Okay, so there's a law now, so people don't talk about it as much now, but if people in my village or another village want to have it done to their girls, they can easily still do it secretly," said a woman from Rania. This week, Iraq has executed at least 26 people.  Today Human Rights Watch noted: Human Rights Watch has previously documented the prevalence of unfair trials and torture in detention, particularly in national security and terrorism-related cases. "There is no doubt that Iraq still has a serious terrorism problem, but it also has a huge problem with torture and unfair trials," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "The lack of transparency around these convictions and executions, in a country where confessions that may have been coerced are often the only evidence against a person, makes it crucial for Iraq to declare an immediate moratorium on all executions." Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because it is unique in its cruelty and finality, and is plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error. Iraqi authorities rarely announce executions beforehandand have not made public the total number of executions in a given year, Human Rights Watch said. An August 30 statement released by Iraq's parliament said that members of the Human Rights Committee had met on the previous day to discuss "a mechanism for slowing down executions." Members told Iraqi media that they had contacted Justice Minister Hassan al-Shimmari to inquire about concerns expressed this week by politicians and nongovernmental organizations that executions of about 200 prisoners now on death-row were being accelerated in anticipation of the passage of an amnesty law currently before parliament. Al-Shimmari denied these claims. On August 29, Human Rights Watch spoke with two Justice Ministry officials as well as a guard in a prison run by the ministry and an inmate currently in another facility. All said that hundreds of inmates had begun hunger strikes on August 28 in Baghdad's Taji and Rusafa prisons to protest the recent executions and concern about the alleged plan to accelerate other executions. According to the inmate, guards had told prisoners about such a plan in the days preceding the latest executions. Human Rights Watch could not confirm the existence of such a plan. Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) notes, "Iraq has long featured in the dubious ranks of the Top Five countries carrying out the most executions each year. In 2011, China led Amnesty's list with executions estimated at more than 1,000, but it also eliminated the death penalty for 13 crimes that previously could draw the ultimate punishment. Iran acknowledged executing at least 360 people, followed by Saudi Arabia with 82 reported executions, Iraq with 68 and the United States 43."  The UN News Centre adds: The United Nations agency tasked with defending human rights voiced renewed concern today over the sudden spate of executions in countries around the world following the recent use of capital punishment in Gambia, Iraq, and South Sudan. "We urge all States, who have not yet done so, to introduce – or reintroduce – an official moratorium on the use of the death penalty aiming to abolish it," Rupert Colville, spokesperson for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), declared in a briefing to the press in Geneva. Violence continued today in Iraq.  Alsumaria reports that there was an armed Baghdad attack in which 1 person was shot dead and one person was kidnapped in Kirkuk (the police managed to rescue the victim after seven hours).  All Iraq News notes an assassination attempt on a cleric in Baghdad -- the cleric survived, the driver was shot dead and one person was shot dead outside a Baghdad mosque.  Kitabat notes that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani called in his sermon today for the security forces to stop the escalating assassinations taking place in Iraq. In terms of the US presidential election, we're interested in the two presidential campaigns made up of four women.  The four: Jill Stein has the Green Party's presidential nomination and her running mate is Cheri Honkala and Roseanne Barr has the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party and her running mate is Cindy Sheehan. Click here to sign a petition calling on Ms. magazine and Women's Media Center to cover her campaign and the other female candidate for president Roseanne Barr's campaign.  Over 250 people have signed onto the petition so far.  Some sign and leave comments and we noted some of the comments in Sunday's "Women Win When Women Run: The conversation Roseanne and Jill are inspiring" at Third -- and "women win when women run" is a theme that repeats in the comments with several people signing noting that theme or expanding on it. While Jill Stein continues to focus on issues, Roseanne's campaign can't find any.  Part of coverage is analysis and the analysis I'm offering for Roseanne's campaign right now is not positive. Roseanne's on a one-woman public hatred tour.  I'm deeply disappointed in a number of people including one friend who was going to get a rave review for her new show from Ava and I but  now we're on the fence about whether or not we're even going to cover it.  You do not accuse people of wanting to kill other people, Ellen Barkin.  That is disgusting and it is appalling.  And you're ensuring that your career in TV will be as dead as your film carreer was when the 90s started.  Somewhere, somehow, you and a bunch of other actors forgot the first rule: To have a career, you need an audience.  It's fine and dandy to take a polticial stand for something.  It's antoher thing to pour on hate and distortions.  Clint Eastwood, who I know and do not care for, does not want to kill anyone, certainly not a politician.  Ellen Barkin crossed a line.  (And Clint gave a great speech.  I would have preferred not to have seen it but I said "Hold on" and stopped dictating to go and stream it since I was stating that Clint would not threaten to kill anyone.  Clint gave a great speech.  He stumbled once that might not have been intentional.  But the speech was great.  He wasn't dottering and only the dumb and foolish would say that.  What Clint did was steal a page from Jane Fonda.  Something we all should do.  She is the most effective speaker and one of her standard tricks is to start off nervous, hesitant and, as she speaks, grow more sure in her delivery.  That allows the audience to witness a transformation and have it be due to beliefs.  In other words, the effective speech sells the beliefs as strength.  Clint didn't do as well as Jane -- again, she's the best speaker alive.  But he's obviously borrowed a page for her book and, yes, his speech was effective.  You can stream it at the Washington Post.)  (And on Jane, this week she's blogged about her latest film role.) Roseanne is doing the same as well.  And NBC's not backing her new show.  They're making that decision right now.  NBC won't back it, none of the networks will.  Because she's going beyond political into hateful.  To have a career in the performing arts, you're going to need an audience.  When you go around trashing people, making up disgusting claims about your peer group (as Ellen did to Clint), you destroy everything.  I'm all for taking stands, I'm all for calling out and I can be bitchier than anyone but when you accuse someone of wanting to kill, you've crossed a line and what's really sad is you are so far gone into a world of hatred that you can't even see that.  And if you are trying to help Barack Obama, you're hatred Tweeted is of no help to him.  It saddles him down with an ugly hatred that his campaign is not engaging in.  You desire to pollute the world with hate is harming you, harming your career and harming Barack's chances at re-election.  You really need to rethink your actions. And the hatred of women needs to stop right damn now.  This is inexcusable: @JasonBiggs I'd totes dip a pinky or two in Paul Ryan's wife's bleached asshole (she obvs bleaches her asshole). #RNC— Jason Biggs (@JasonBiggs) August 30, 2012 29 Aug 12 As is this: Jason Biggs @JasonBiggs "@GODisSanta420: @JasonBiggs How dare you ignore Ann Romney's asshole. Ur un-American." Sorry ur right. I bet hers is un-bleached and hairy. 30 Aug 12 Reply Retweet Favorite Those are only two of the Tweets that are unacceptable.  They do not help Barack Obama.  They do not help anyone.  They are why the basic cable network is now considering dropping Jason Biggs.  His film career is over.  As a sitcom star, he struck out.  (Though he wasn't the problem in that sitcom and was actually funny and appealing.)  Now all he has is voice work.  When you are on thin ice, Jason, you do not jump and down.  Those statements were repugnant and offensive.  That you can't grasp that says there is something seriously wrong with you.  Maybe it's temporary and you need to get out in the world.  Maybe it's something more serious and you need therapy.  But there is no excuse for what you have Tweeted -- and it's more than just those two Tweets.  You need to stop and you need to stop now.  Not only does it hurt Barack, your hero, but Barack will be called upon to apologize for your actions.  He may or may not take that step to distance himself.  But you are distracting from the campaign.  If for no other reason, that should cause you to cease and desist.  But, repeating, your comments are offensive and they are sexist.  There is not an excuse for them.  They need to stop. Roseanne needs to find her way back to focusing on issues.  If she can't, she's accomplishing nothing and hurting the Peace and Freedom Party.  She said she was running to raise issues.  So, Roseanne, when is your big mouth going to be used to tackle an issue other than smoking pot?  Is that all you have?  If that is all you have, the Peace and Freedom Party will distance itself from you -- there were already efforts underway to make that happen.  How would it feel to be the first presidential candidate whose own party publicly rebukes them? I noted months ago here that I would not vote for Roseanne because she's governed by fear.  I know Roseanne and I like her as a person and as an artist.  But I don't back putting fear into the White House or our election cycles.  I could end up voting for Jill Stein who continues to run a campaign based on issues.  (At this point, my plan is still not to vote for that office.) Jill Stein took her campaign to Maine.  Deidre Fulton (Portland Phoenix) reports: After her public speech, I asked her what it's been like trying to convince people that we're at a tipping point in terms of breaking the endless (and fruitless) back-and-forth between the two establishment political parties. She likened her experience to being a "political therapist, helping people get out of an abusive political relationship." There will always be excuses as to why people should continue voting for status quo candidates, why they should stay within the confines of a system that isn't helping them, and in fact may be hurting them.  "The politics of fear has delivered all the things we were afraid of" Stein said.  What's that adage about being insane? Doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result every time? Perhaps its time to try something new, before we all lose our minds.  Craig Lyons (Portland Daily Sun) adds: During a series of campaign stops in Maine, Stein gave the keynote address during a Green Party rally in Monument Square. Local Green Party candidates for the state legislature and school board.Stein said it's time to take back people's jobs, their health care and their educations. She said people want to take back their democracy."It needs fixing at every level," she said. "It won't get fixed ... unless it's challenged."Stein, who lives in Lexington, Mass., has a long history of activism and political involvement outside her work as a doctor. It was during the discussion on the debt ceiling last year that Stein became more involved with the Green Party. She said both political parties made proposals to cut the debt that dismantled programs like Medicare and Medicaid and removed the social safety net. Attached to the Stein ticket as vice president is Cheri Honkala -- a renowned anti-poverty activist based in Philadelphia. While Roseanne continues to wallow in hatred, Jill's talking about issues including how her own outlook was transformed and about ballot access.  Scott Bernarde (Patch) speaks with Dr. Stein and reports: As a mother of young kids and a doctor in a clinic, she saw the epidemic of chronic diseases descend on this generation's children. "It took becoming a mother to feel the incredible vulnerability of our future, and to take it personally," said Stein. Diabetes, obesity, ADHD and others were among her biggest concern. Some even hit close to home. "To learn that we have effectively poisoned our own nest," she said, "not only the air, but the food that we're eating, and that it has fundamentally contaminated the womb, drives home the imperative to protect it all." It was that realization that became the catalyst for her political career. While she is on target to be on 45 separate state ballots, she recently learned that she will not appear on the Georgia ballot. Georgia has "the most antidemocratic ballot in the country," according to Stein. Instead, she is encouraging a grassroots write-in campaign.  While Roseanne spews hatred and loses focus and wastes time, Jill's campaign is focused on reality.  Craig Lyons (Portland Daily Sun) reports: Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein said she recognizes that it's unlikely that a third party can take the White House but at least another presence in the election can turn attention to the voters who are fed up with the current policies of the two major parties. "We're in at a unique breaking point moment right now," said Stein, during an interview with the Daily Sun. "People are ready to turn that breaking point into a tipping point." Jill Stein has to work for coverage and is getting it.  Roseanne's a household name and the press has a natural interest in her as such but the only press she's getting is about how hateful she's being.  It's not highlighting any issues, it's not helping anyone -- including Roseanne.  November's not that far away, has she already tossed in the towel and lost interest in her own campaign?  Those are tough words.  I'd really prefer not to have to write them.  But I don't whore for anyone.  And Roseanne needs to get her act together.  (Cindy Sheehan is not top of the ticket.  She is the running mate.  But, yes, Cindy is focusing on issues.  Roseanne is the distraction.  The plan for today was actually to highlight the Roseanne-Cindy ticket with an interview Cindy did but Roseanne's appalling behavior is the story of the day for the Roseanne-Cindy ticket. And it will remain the story of the day until she stops this nonsense and starts talking about issues.) iraq abc news devin dwyer the los angeles times kathleen hennessey the telegraph of london sean rayment carol j. williams al mada alsumaria